Opinion

The Edgy Optimist

Fed tells markets: There is no certainty

Zachary Karabell
Sep 20, 2013 16:00 UTC

So the Federal Reserve did not taper after all, as we know from its mini-bombshell of an announcement on September 18th. Having signaled in May and June that the central bank was likely to pare back its monthly purchases of $85 billion in mortgage and treasury bonds, the bank and its chairman Ben Bernanke essentially said “Never mind,” and decided that now was not the time after all.

The reaction was swift, vociferous and excoriating. The financial community reacted as if it had been stabbed in the back. One longtime trader and respected commentator announced that he was “absolutely disgusted” by the decision or lack thereof. The best line came from a strategist at a leading investment house who said, “I am perplexed and baffled. I do this for a living. I shouldn’t be so confused and confounded.”

Actually he should be. We all should be. The Fed’s decision is a much-needed slap in the face to the financial world. The Fed’s statement was laden with typically stolid prose, but if you could have distilled it and the subsequent press conference by Bernanke, the message would have been simply this: “There is no certainty. Get over it.”

Time and again over the past few years, business and financial elites have decried the lack of certainty. Fortune 500 companies have routinely cited “uncertainty” emanating from Washington as a reason to delay hiring or hold off on investing. That was the primary conclusion of a University Colorado study this spring, whose authors concluded, “If policymakers would like companies to increase their hiring and investments, they should focus on policies that decrease business uncertainty.” That was particularly true at the end of 2012 as tax policy and the sequester were clouded in political controversy.

The hallmark of Ben Bernanke’s years at the helm of the Federal Reserve has been an unprecedented degree of transparency and communication about the thinking and deliberations of the bank. The Federal Reserve was created exactly a century ago, and for most of the past hundred years, even its decisions were opaque. There was no announcement of interest rate changes, and certainly no 24-hour news cycle and media ready to digest and report the minutia.

What difference does it make who runs the Fed?

Zachary Karabell
Aug 2, 2013 17:43 UTC

As this week’s release of government numbers on unemployment and jobs highlight, the American economy is puttering along in the slow lane. And while few things in life are more frustrating than being stuck in the passenger seat of that car, it certainly beats crashing.

The second gear syndrome of our current economic life doesn’t sit well in a culture that demands more. Our macroeconomic numbers may be stable, but they obscure vast differences in affluence and opportunity, depending on where you live, what you do, what ethnicity you identify with, and how educated you are. The official unemployment rate, now at 7.4 percent, has been ticking down, but it is simply a statistic. It says nothing about the quality of those jobs, hours worked, wages paid, and needs met. Those are the questions we need to attend to.

Instead, in Washington at least, the economic discussion is currently dominated by the debate over who will be the next chair of the Federal Reserve. The story has the perfect makings of a Washington horse race. The lead contender, Larry Summers, engenders passions both for and against, while the main challenger, longtime Fed governor Janet Yellen, has captured the anti-Summers vote. Meanwhile, former Fed governor and current head of TIAA-CREF Roger Ferguson, has emerged as a compromise candidate, though no one is quite clear how his name first surfaced, and the New York Times is reporting Obama is interviewing only three people — Summers, Yellen and Donald Kohn, a former Fed vice chairman.

  •